Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: silentmark on March 24, 2005, 07:49:09 AM
-
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=12642&viewcomm=95134#comm95134
I would be interested to hear comments from folks about this.
Would there be a difference ? To me the eventual wav from both sources should be the same, before any post processing ...
-
I don't know what a CO2 is but am guessing that this is a gizmo to take a digital feed from the SBM-1 and convert it to optical so the JB3 can recieve the digital feed. Based on that assumtion: Two people each taking a digital feed from a SBM-1 - one records on a D8 and the other on a JB3. There is abolutely no difference between the two sources - the D8 and the JB3 at this point are just transfering the bits to their particular recording medium (tape in the case of the D8, HD in the case of the JB3). For this person to think one could have richer bass or sounder clearer is nonsense and shows they aren't very clear on the concept. I suppose the transfer methods of each could yield different results but if each person transfered the source digitally and no processing such as EQ, normalizing or similar editing occurred then the resultant transfered sources should be the same as well (other then any differences in in tracking/indexing).
As for who should get credit on the text file...you two can scap it out over that one - seems a bit trivial to me. If I were the patcher and doing the text file, I'd at least make a note thanking you for the patch and/or explaining that I patched out of your rig. Ultimately the idea is that folks can track down the source person/people if there is a problem discovered, questions etc. I also think it is always couteous to give credit where it is due.
-
FWIW, I've posted debunking TOD²OW!'s rampant misconceptions and half-truths.
And DGale - yes, the CO2 is a digital format converter.
-
wtf this guy is dumb, thanks for breaking it down brian.
-
the CO2 isn't even bit-perfect, correct???
-
the CO2 isn't even bit-perfect, correct???
There are anecdotal reports of the CO2 producing artifacts - dropped or misplaced samples - with certain gear combinations and powering options. At any rate, simple digital format converters don't resample, though they have the potential to introduce artifacts.
-
Thanks folks. I wasn't sure if the CO2 resampled or did something funky...
Brian, thanks for the detailed response ...
+T's to all ...
I know the whole giving credit to who did what is somewhat trivial, but once I read TOD²OW!'s intial comments I was somewhat annoyed. It is stuff like this that makes me think twice about giving out patches. I don't want to be a d*ck, but I know when I used to patch I gave full credit to the taper ...
-
I just posted ;D
-
I just posted ;D
+t ;D
-
I just posted ;D
+t ;D
backatcha
-
WOW, what an asshat
-
the CO2 isn't even bit-perfect, correct???
There are anecdotal reports of the CO2 producing artifacts - dropped or misplaced samples - with certain gear combinations and powering options. At any rate, simple digital format converters don't resample, though they have the potential to introduce artifacts.
I think it's more than just anecdotal. Jamie Lutch tested the JB3 for but accuracy for many months and could never get the unit to be bit accurate when using a CO2. Once people started using the HOSA boxes the JB3 was suddenly bit perfect.
-
the CO2 isn't even bit-perfect, correct???
There are anecdotal reports of the CO2 producing artifacts - dropped or misplaced samples - with certain gear combinations and powering options. At any rate, simple digital format converters don't resample, though they have the potential to introduce artifacts.
I think it's more than just anecdotal. Jamie Lutch tested the JB3 for but accuracy for many months and could never get the unit to be bit accurate when using a CO2. Once people started using the HOSA boxes the JB3 was suddenly bit perfect.
I do know from my own personal expereince that the CO2 is NOT perfect. I used one for about 3 hours to take a DVD (48k) > CO2 > JB3 (48k). I ended up with many drop-outs of varying lengths (up to several seconds) and severla bits of digi-noise.
I got a Hosa soon afterwards and never had an audible problem, though I have NOT tested it for bit-accuracy.
Also, I bought a RadioShack DFC ($10) and it is NOT bit-perfect. I notice the same drop-outs, etc., but since it goes from the TV to the stereo and isn't really for taping... Just for running audio out to the stereo for movie watching...
T
-
what an un-grateful douchebag
-
Torrent (http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=12642): gone!
-
wtf
etree.org Community Bittorrent Tracker
no such torrent
he pulled it, wtf. guess we hurt his feelings. I didn't bother to d/l but i'd love to seed it for you mark if you are not planning on it
-
I haven't got around to the transfer yet, but once I do I'll be in touch, thanks ...
Heh I wish he didn't pull it as I would have been curious if he even responded anymore ...
-
Heh I see another seed by this guy http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=12783 but I think he got the point as he is not listed as "taper" ...
-
the CO2 isn't even bit-perfect, correct???
There are anecdotal reports of the CO2 producing artifacts - dropped or misplaced samples - with certain gear combinations and powering options. At any rate, simple digital format converters don't resample, though they have the potential to introduce artifacts.
Hmmm...do I detect a softening of your position on the CO2 thing? That I can agree with...!
You may (or may not) be suprised to find Mr tOdDoW is a good friend of mine - I assure you he is not as dumb as his etree posts make him sound...
I find that a lot of the younger guys - who have had CDs their whole lives - have a harder time grasping basic concepts of analog vs digital signals - older guys - like myself grew up on analog. So when CD came out - there was a great interest to understand the technology, and it really helped already haveing a strong understanding of analog signals.
I have a set of mics that I plan of passing on to tOdDoW...once he does the whole job himself - Im sure his viewpoint will change...
FWIW - I never put my name on anything I tape - I dont know why - I just think its too much of an obvious attempt to associate myself with someone elses greatness...
FWIW2 - I had noticed tOdDoWs tendency to dismiss the actual taper on other seeds - I knew sooner or later he would get his ass bit. I told him he should give the lead taper some time make the transfer. If the recording doesnt surface in a certain amount of time - then seed yours...I think there should be some etiquet when seeding "patched" recordings...at least ask the lead taper if he plans on seeding...
-
Well I can tell you this, friend or not, dumb or not (even though all you have to do is ask someone who is tuned in or just search the web and read or just come here ;)), I highly doubt I will give him a patch the next time I'm in town, shrug, lesson learned ...
Fozzy - I have the raw transfer done, just need to listen again and track it out, stay tuned ...
-
bummer i missed all the bruhaha, love reading free entertainment on the internet
TOD²OW!_©] << that handle is entertaining and hard to look at for too long, must be hell to enter, unless he keeps it permanently on a clipboard
-
the CO2 isn't even bit-perfect, correct???
There are anecdotal reports of the CO2 producing artifacts - dropped or misplaced samples - with certain gear combinations and powering options. At any rate, simple digital format converters don't resample, though they have the potential to introduce artifacts.
Hmmm...do I detect a softening of your position on the CO2 thing? That I can agree with...!
You may (or may not) be suprised to find Mr tOdDoW is a good friend of mine -
So are you still defending the CO2? Have you run any actual tests? Every test that Jamie Lutch ran showed dropped and missed samples. Can you demonstrate that the CO2 no longer drops or misses samples?
-
Hmmm...do I detect a softening of your position on the CO2 thing? That I can agree with...!
No, not really. The fact remains: no one - with any combination of gear, under any circumstances - has ever proved the CO2 bit-transparent.
-
Hmmm...do I detect a softening of your position on the CO2 thing? That I can agree with...!
No, not really. The fact remains: no one - with any combination of gear, under any circumstances - has ever proved the CO2 bit-transparent.
Yeah, and I'm still wishing that someone would take enough time to do a little reverse engineering on the CO2 and publish the schematic. It really makes me wonder what could possibly be going on that it would not send a bit literal copy of what went into the box, unless it just doesn't drive the output LED hard enough to reliably send the 1's in the bit stream. The concept should be pretty simple:
When you receive a logical high voltage = Turn the LED on
When you receive a logical low voltage = Turn the LED off
Seems like it would take a horrible design concept to screw that one up.
FWIW, I posted a schematic for the ODL-276 on this thread:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=36146.0;all
Reposted here:
(http://www.redhawkaig.com/ODL-276Schematic.jpg)
Hopefully, someone will eventually post a schematic for the CO2. I'd feel a lot better about the CO2 bashing if someone could actually point out the design flaw that is responsible for the reports of non bit perfect transfers using the CO2.
-
i wonder if the CO2 just has a crappy optical TX or if they forgot the capacitor. Hopefully someone can atleast post a picture of the internals. converting coax to optical is fairly trivial the only additional thing you need is +5v or +3.3v to power the optical TX.
-
here is the other side of the CO2 -
-
What's the part number on the chip right below the "MID" in MIDIMAN?
-
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=12783
Well I will not be giving this person a patch ever again, I don't know if I should respond or just let it go ...
-
TAHT GUYS FUKED UP!1!!!1 H3 PUT WAY 2 MANY LOL AND LMAO IN HIS POSTS 2 TAEK SERIOUSLY1!!1 WTF
;)
-
"So good luck to you in your quest for "taper" recognition. Meanwhile, I'll be jammin' too some killer tunes! LMAO"
uhhhh......
Nothing really you can say to this one. It speaks volumes.
Me? I'm gonna go 'jammin' to that master I'm too lazy to BT (taper recognition be damned, I say)
-
TAHT GUYS FUKED UP!1!!!1 H3 PUT WAY 2 MANY LOL AND LMAO IN HIS POSTS 2 TAEK SERIOUSLY1!!1 WTF
;)
What is even funnier is he thinks I'm twatts.
Sorry corkscrew but your 'buddy' is a clueless ass ...
-
TAHT GUYS FUKED UP!1!!!1 H3 PUT WAY 2 MANY LOL AND LMAO IN HIS POSTS 2 TAEK SERIOUSLY1!!1 WTF
;)
What is even funnier is he thinks I'm twatts.
Sorry corkscrew but your 'buddy' is a clueless ass ...
Whatever bud, I dont have time to keep up with the drama you managed to generate over this...
-
What is even funnier is he thinks I'm twatts.
Sorry corkscrew but your 'buddy' is a clueless ass ...
Thanks Corkscrew! Drama is right. There is a way to teach, and there is a way to antagonize. And as a general rule of thumb, it is best to speak in private about certain matters if you want fast results, perhaps email. When posts are made on public boards, things turn personal and people say stoopid stuff, largely due to there being an audience. 90% of what I was writting was meant to be humorous, 10% was genuine confusion over some key taper issues. I admitt I had some misconceptions about the D-7, but this was largely in part due to my previous experience working with a taper who uses rca cable >D-7. Which is where I was coming from with my initial comments about there being audible differences in sources. Indeed, I have heard the "analog" difference of this method. I don't claim to be an expert in these sorts of things, I just like music. I like being involved in the taping and seeding of music, and I never intended to piss anyone off. Sometimes I do use sarcasm, and sometimes folks don't detect that online. I think Corkscrew would agree, I am not the type looking for a fight. As anyone can see, I have now learned the differences between "taper" and "patcher" as well as the information about bit perfect digital sources being identical. Thank you for that information, I will make a point to check on this board more often to keep myself up to date and as informed as I possibly can be. Hopefully the personal attacks can rest, maybe someday Mark and I will have a beer and a nug and laugh about all this misunderstanding (maybe not, I can live with either). If Mark learned anything from this, I hope it is that public message boards are not always the best medium for communicating with people. I am not a digital device, I am organic and I can make mistakes. Hopefully we can learn from our mistakes and move on. That's what I have done.
Later, ------------------------------TOD²OW!©
8)
P.S.
On the issue of the CO2: My experiences with the CO2 have proven to be much more reliable since using my 9.6 Volt R/C car battery I modified to power it. I do remember having "artifacts" when I used the adapter that came with the unit. But since switching to battery I have not experienced any problems. Is it possible that the battery pack is the missing link, perhaps providing a more stable environment? Just a thought.
-
TOD²OW!_©????
...never heard of him... 8)
-
Heh you talk about drama, we both are at fault, but you were wrong from the beginning, period.
I hope you at least learned to give credit where credit is due...
-
Whatever dude......thanks for leading me here to this site ;D. There is a wealth of knowledge here. That Corkscrew....such a ball breaker...lol.
L8.
8)
-
Whatever dude......thanks for leading me here to this site ;D. There is a wealth of knowledge here. That Corkscrew....such a ball breaker...lol.
L8.
8)
Welcome to TS. You're right, lots of knowledge here, and sometimes, we get a little out of hand. I'm sure you can understand.
Terry
-
CANT W3 AL JUST G3T ALONG????!?!!111111 OMG!!??!WTF!!!
(Somebody's gotta pick up Tim's slack)
-
CANT W3 AL JUST G3T ALONG????!?!!111111 OMG!!??!WTF!!!
(Somebody's gotta pick up Tim's slack)
1111!!!!!WTF LOL WH3R3S TIM???!?!?! OMG!!!11H3 HASNT B33n H3R3 SINC3 PAG1!?!?!LOL!!!!111!